Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

Reminding everyone that her office is, in reality, responsible for these things, not the WH != falling on any sword.

Perhaps this situation could have been avoided if State Dept. internal comm. was better, such that their requests for long term help were properly routed. Then again, even if they were, they likely wouldn't have had money to cover it, since Rep. Issa - the same guy running an "investigation" into all of this - voted multiple times to cut their security budget by more than 25%.

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?

Hate to break it to you, but the POTUS is never fully informed on every little detail from State.

FTFA: Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. However, they added, "The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the commander-in-chief. The buck stops there."

Except for the SEVEN attacks under Bush II

And the THREE under Carter

And the THREE under Reagan

And the ONE each under Clinton and Bush I

shiat, Reagan lost 241 Americans with 60 injured in a single attackin Beirut in in 1983. And then he cut and ran. Nevertheless, Lindsay Graham is still sucking the Gipper's ghostly dick. Wringing your hands over less than 10 people? Bullshiat, Graham.

You know how I know that subby is not in upper management? Clinton herself would not be involved in day to day security decisions with something the size of the Baghdad embassy much less a podunk consulate in Libya.

Grand_Moff_Joseph:Perhaps this situation could have been avoided if State Dept. internal comm. was better, such that their requests for long term help were properly routed.

It also might have helped if the Benghazi post had actually requisitioned for more security. The recent hearings have made it clear that all the requests from Libya were for Tripoli, on the other side of the country,

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?

Hate to break it to you, but the POTUS is never fully informed on every little detail from State.

/Org charts and dispersion of job duties - how do they work?

First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?

Hate to break it to you, but the POTUS is never fully informed on every little detail from State.

/Org charts and dispersion of job duties - how do they work?

First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain

Who actually loses their job or suffers the practical consequences? The first mate.

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?

Hate to break it to you, but the POTUS is never fully informed on every little detail from State.

/Org charts and dispersion of job duties - how do they work?

First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain

Who actually loses their job or suffers the practical consequences? The first mate.

Be that as it may, the Captain also is shown the door; but hey, at least the Captain would still keep his pension.

fusillade762:To be fair, for conservatives acknowledging reality can be fatal.

tha f*ck are you talking about?

the point of my post is that this is how it works. Clinton didn't "fall on her sword". She took responsibility for what is her responsibility. And if Obama is running some butf*cked State Dept, then he'll be held responsible. People will judge for themselves, and clearly most people don't think that this was something Obama should have foreseen.

Grand_Moff_Joseph:Hate to break it to you, but the POTUS is never fully informed on every little detail from State.

Thanks for making my point. You're right - this is a non-story. But if it were, Obama is responsible for the State dept's actions regardless of how detailed it is. If there was negligence, he will be held responsible, regardless of whether Clinton "takes responsibility" for it.

Point is that nobody's ducking responsibility. Good lord, I hope Romney walks into a trap like that.

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?

Hate to break it to you, but the POTUS is never fully informed on every little detail from State.

/Org charts and dispersion of job duties - how do they work?

First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain

Who actually loses their job or suffers the practical consequences? The first mate.

Be that as it may, the Captain also is shown the door; but hey, at least the Captain would still keep his pension.

Even in serious situations, the COs are often the last to get punished. If that wasn't the case, dozens of COs would be out of a job, with so many rapes occurring under their watches. In this case though, it's hard to blame the captain for much when the first mate was receiving incorrect orders from the navigational officers, and the provisioning people kept cutting back the resources available to the nav officer.

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?

Hate to break it to you, but the POTUS is never fully informed on every little detail from State.

/Org charts and dispersion of job duties - how do they work?

First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain

Who actually loses their job or suffers the practical consequences? The first mate.

Be that as it may, the Captain also is shown the door; but hey, at least the Captain would still keep his pension.

Even in serious situations, the COs are often the last to get punished. If that wasn't the case, dozens of COs would be out of a job, with so many rapes occurring under their watches. In this case though, it's hard to blame the captain for much when the first mate was receiving incorrect orders from the navigational officers, and the provisioning people kept cutting back the resources available to the nav officer.

If Captain Kirk was real he would give you a mighty fine ass woppin' over a remark like that.

You are responsible for the actions of your crew. Thats how it is and that is how it will always be.

Obama takes responsibility for allowing Clinton to slip. It is his job to make sure she is doing her job.

Grand_Moff_Joseph:Even in serious situations, the COs are often the last to get punished. If that wasn't the case, dozens of COs would be out of a job, with so many rapes occurring under their watches. In this case though, it's hard to blame the captain for much when the first mate was receiving incorrect orders from the navigational officers, and the provisioning people kept cutting back the resources available to the nav officer.

You have to admit this is clearly an attempt to deflect responsibility from Obama in a hotly contested election. Whether or not he had any knowledge of the security situation in Benghazi -- and I personally doubt he did -- he is getting hammered on this issue at a time when his presidency is hanging by a thread.

Grand_Moff_Joseph:Even in serious situations, the COs are often the last to get punished

That's because those responsible for CO discipline will factor in the distance between the CO and the error.

Whose fault is it that the mechanic didn't tighten the bolt enough? It depends. If it wasn't in the training, then you blame the traininer. If it was in the training, but not the manual, then you blame manual writers. Did the Lt in charge of bolt tightening issue potentially contravening order? Then it's the LT's fault. Did the CO give the orders leading to the LT's orders? Finally, it might be the CO's fault,

Yeah, that's not really falling on any sort of sword. They might as well point to Jimmy the page in the corner and say he farked it up. In my imagination, they don't tell him they're going to blame him ahead of time and all the cameras in the press conference suddenly swing to him. Of course, he'd actually pose his position rather than being allowed to keep on until he decided to quit.

So... you think that the POTUS is omniscient and omnipresent? Because I just don't think Obama has those kinds of supernatural powers.

I dunno the whole thing seems pretty grasping. Like claiming that it was Bush's fault Cheney shot somebody in the face.

Let me put it in a different light.

In May 2011, Obama approved of a mission to kill Bin Laden. He signed the order authorizing troops to enter a country we were not at war with to take out a high value target. If Obama failed this could have been a SIGNIFICANT blow to his administration. He would have had to take all the flak for its failure. Since it was a success he can take it and put it in his win column. He didnt plan the raid. He didnt conduct the raid. All he did was approve the raid. For that he deserves credit.

Someone didn't do their job and an American diplomat was killed. Obama is the President of the United States. He is our figurehead. He is also responsible for ensuring the cabinet members can do their damn job. Obama shares both the glory and the defeat in instances like this.

Babwa Wawa:fusillade762: To be fair, for conservatives acknowledging reality can be fatal.

tha f*ck are you talking about?

the point of my post is that this is how it works. Clinton didn't "fall on her sword". She took responsibility for what is her responsibility. And if Obama is running some butf*cked State Dept, then he'll be held responsible. People will judge for themselves, and clearly most people don't think that this was something Obama should have foreseen.

Sorry, I'm not disagreeing with you. It was a clumsy attempt at equating stating the obvious with something dangerous.

cman:fusillade762: cman: First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain

But I thought we were supposed to be running government like a business? Now I'm all confused...

If you are implying that I have ever said something to that effect I would like for you to refresh my memory

Not saying YOU ever said that, it's just a popular conservative refrain.

gilgigamesh:he is getting hammered on this issue at a time when his presidency is hanging by a thread.

Only if you pay attention to the networks who need to make this seem like a close race so they can sell ad space.

The reality is employment is up, Obamacare is kicking in, and even housing prices have stabilized. Meanwhile the GOP decided to pander to FOX viewers while alienating women, people of color, college students.....

On top of that is the sad fact that Romney is about as compelling a speaker as Al Gore was when he was running for Pres... I really wish somebody would take Obama to task on his shortcomings but apparently that job is left to us libby lib libs.

quickdraw:Only if you pay attention to the networks who need to make this seem like a close race so they can sell ad space.

No, this was a genuine farkup. Probably not the attack itself, but the aftermath has been grossly mishandled. The administration got it stuck in their heads that they couldn't afford the political fallout of a terrorist attack on 9-11 in an election year, and so they tried to pass off the bizarre fiction of a protest that went south. There was no way they could keep that lie alive, and they should have known it.

If they had just owned up that this was a terrorist attack we probably wouldn't still be talking about this. Its the age old adage that what kills you isn't the initial offense, its the cover-up.

So... you think that the POTUS is omniscient and omnipresent? Because I just don't think Obama has those kinds of supernatural powers.

I dunno the whole thing seems pretty grasping. Like claiming that it was Bush's fault Cheney shot somebody in the face.

Let me put it in a different light.

In May 2011, Obama approved of a mission to kill Bin Laden. He signed the order authorizing troops to enter a country we were not at war with to take out a high value target. If Obama failed this could have been a SIGNIFICANT blow to his administration. He would have had to take all the flak for its failure. Since it was a success he can take it and put it in his win column. He didnt plan the raid. He didnt conduct the raid. All he did was approve the raid. For that he deserves credit.

Someone didn't do their job and an American diplomat was killed. Obama is the President of the United States. He is our figurehead. He is also responsible for ensuring the cabinet members can do their damn job. Obama shares both the glory and the defeat in instances like this.

Well that seems like a very simplistic way of looking at it. Obama cant be all things to all people and he cant be everywhere at once. He did need to oversee the assassination of bin laden directly. And lets face it - it all could have gone wrong and then he would have had to take responsibility for that.

But you cant expect POTUS to personally attend to every detail. Micromanaging is not an effective strategy. And there is only so much he can do. If the GOPpers in Congress refuse to cut loose of the funds to increase security then POTUS can't just override that. You can't blame POTUS for budgetary decisions that congress made unless they voted they way he wanted them to.

It's been reported that the attacks may involve or even been led by Sufyan bin Qumu who spent 5 years in Gitmo and was let out. LINK Guy was allegedly Bin Laden's personal driver. So my question is, how does a guy like that get out of Gitmo? Possible answer - Agree to double-agent? The intelligence services may be hip deep in this thing, but I doubt we'll ever know.

gilgigamesh:quickdraw: Only if you pay attention to the networks who need to make this seem like a close race so they can sell ad space.

No, this was a genuine farkup. Probably not the attack itself, but the aftermath has been grossly mishandled. The administration got it stuck in their heads that they couldn't afford the political fallout of a terrorist attack on 9-11 in an election year, and so they tried to pass off the bizarre fiction of a protest that went south. There was no way they could keep that lie alive, and they should have known it.

If they had just owned up that this was a terrorist attack we probably wouldn't still be talking about this. Its the age old adage that what kills you isn't the initial offense, its the cover-up.

Hunh - I'm just really not seeing this as a major issue. I don't know a single person who thinks this is a problem. I know plenty of people who are unhappy with Obama but everyone seems to agree that tragedies happen sometimes and that blame in this case rests squarely on the people who perpetrated the violence and no one else.

I suppose people who already weren't planning to vote for Obama can add this to their list of grievances but its hard to take those people seriously since they also spend a lot of time ranting about birth certificates and secret muslims.

quickdraw:cman: quickdraw: Babwa Wawa: /Chain of Command. How does it work?

So... you think that the POTUS is omniscient and omnipresent? Because I just don't think Obama has those kinds of supernatural powers.

I dunno the whole thing seems pretty grasping. Like claiming that it was Bush's fault Cheney shot somebody in the face.

Let me put it in a different light.

In May 2011, Obama approved of a mission to kill Bin Laden. He signed the order authorizing troops to enter a country we were not at war with to take out a high value target. If Obama failed this could have been a SIGNIFICANT blow to his administration. He would have had to take all the flak for its failure. Since it was a success he can take it and put it in his win column. He didnt plan the raid. He didnt conduct the raid. All he did was approve the raid. For that he deserves credit.

Someone didn't do their job and an American diplomat was killed. Obama is the President of the United States. He is our figurehead. He is also responsible for ensuring the cabinet members can do their damn job. Obama shares both the glory and the defeat in instances like this.

Well that seems like a very simplistic way of looking at it. Obama cant be all things to all people and he cant be everywhere at once. He did need to oversee the assassination of bin laden directly. And lets face it - it all could have gone wrong and then he would have had to take responsibility for that.

But you cant expect POTUS to personally attend to every detail. Micromanaging is not an effective strategy. And there is only so much he can do. If the GOPpers in Congress refuse to cut loose of the funds to increase security then POTUS can't just override that. You can't blame POTUS for budgetary decisions that congress made unless they voted they way he wanted them to.

I ain't putting all of the blame at the Obama admin feet. There were people on the ground who did not do their job properly. Funding or no a diplomat was killed because of shiatty planning. As for the funding question, I really don't think that adding one or two more tote security detail would have made a difference in this instance. Manpower is only one part of the battlefield. If you don't have a good battle plan, you are gonna get your ass kicked. Google Boudica to see what I mean

quickdraw:gilgigamesh: quickdraw: Only if you pay attention to the networks who need to make this seem like a close race so they can sell ad space.

No, this was a genuine farkup. Probably not the attack itself, but the aftermath has been grossly mishandled. The administration got it stuck in their heads that they couldn't afford the political fallout of a terrorist attack on 9-11 in an election year, and so they tried to pass off the bizarre fiction of a protest that went south. There was no way they could keep that lie alive, and they should have known it.

If they had just owned up that this was a terrorist attack we probably wouldn't still be talking about this. Its the age old adage that what kills you isn't the initial offense, its the cover-up.

Hunh - I'm just really not seeing this as a major issue. I don't know a single person who thinks this is a problem. I know plenty of people who are unhappy with Obama but everyone seems to agree that tragedies happen sometimes and that blame in this case rests squarely on the people who perpetrated the violence and no one else.

I suppose people who already weren't planning to vote for Obama can add this to their list of grievances but its hard to take those people seriously since they also spend a lot of time ranting about birth certificates and secret muslims.

Well, you need to look past your personal experience. The proof is in the pudding: why else would Clinton need to come out several weeks after this incident and proclaim responsibility if the administration wasn't taking heat for it?

cman:quickdraw: cman: quickdraw: Babwa Wawa: /Chain of Command. How does it work?

So... you think that the POTUS is omniscient and omnipresent? Because I just don't think Obama has those kinds of supernatural powers.

I dunno the whole thing seems pretty grasping. Like claiming that it was Bush's fault Cheney shot somebody in the face.

Let me put it in a different light.

In May 2011, Obama approved of a mission to kill Bin Laden. He signed the order authorizing troops to enter a country we were not at war with to take out a high value target. If Obama failed this could have been a SIGNIFICANT blow to his administration. He would have had to take all the flak for its failure. Since it was a success he can take it and put it in his win column. He didnt plan the raid. He didnt conduct the raid. All he did was approve the raid. For that he deserves credit.

Someone didn't do their job and an American diplomat was killed. Obama is the President of the United States. He is our figurehead. He is also responsible for ensuring the cabinet members can do their damn job. Obama shares both the glory and the defeat in instances like this.

Well that seems like a very simplistic way of looking at it. Obama cant be all things to all people and he cant be everywhere at once. He did need to oversee the assassination of bin laden directly. And lets face it - it all could have gone wrong and then he would have had to take responsibility for that.

But you cant expect POTUS to personally attend to every detail. Micromanaging is not an effective strategy. And there is only so much he can do. If the GOPpers in Congress refuse to cut loose of the funds to increase security then POTUS can't just override that. You can't blame POTUS for budgetary decisions that congress made unless they voted they way he wanted them to.

I ain't putting all of the blame at the Obama admin feet. There were people on the ground who did not do their job properly. Funding or no a diplomat was killed because of sh ...

Fools! This is all part of a diabolical Clinton plot. Yes........yes, I can see it clearly in my mind now. The Clinton cabal headed by James Carville has somehow determined that Obama will not win the reelection. Romney takes office and the economy sails off the cliff. The United States becomes mired in another deep recession and the people will wail and gnash their teeth.

From off in the distance trumpets cry. On the horizon, emerging from the mist, sun at her back, spear clenched in her fist comes the reborn Brünnhilde, er....Hillary. She who has admitted her errors. She who placed the yoke of failure upon herself in order to shield a doomed administration. She who should have rightly been elected in 2008 will now ascend to the throne. It will be the second coming of Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt. The masses will cry and be swooned. She will serve eight years. Her administration will survive the scandal surrounding Bill's death from asphyxiation after he and Monica reunited and she tried to queen him one night in the Lincoln bedroom. Sometime during her reign the dollar will have finished its death spiral. The debt will be monatorized. The citizens will all be given a "living wage". There shall be free healthcare for all. There will be new deals and old deals. Levitating magnetic trains will crisscross the country. The ocean currents will have been harnessed for energy. The Philadelphia Eagles will have won back to back super bowls.

Then......one day, after we are all dead and gone, the history will be written. Somewhere in DC a plot of land will be picked out. Arguments will commence, plans drawn......only to be ripped to shreds and discarded, the process repeated dozens of times. Until the fateful day when the design of the Clinton Memorial will be agreed upon. And there, future generations of Americans will flock, humbly, silently, seeking counsel. They will gaze upon the alabaster face of Hillary Clinton. The practiced determined gazeforever set in stone, with no presence of Bill to disturb the cathedral like atmosphere. She will be remembered by the ages. Our first female president.

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.